Aside from absolutely no real communication with other players, the least effective part of the alpha for me was Crucible. I had a hard time telling which team people where on, there was no communication, and the different levels of equipment played a pretty big role in combat. I was constantly getting killed by players with heavy weapons, melee attacks weren't one shot kills so I often ended up alerting an enemy who then even with a melee hit on them turned around and killed me with a heavy gun. My special ability never seemed available. I didn't play Crucible for long, died to fast, my teams never won, and the rewards were pretty paltry. Maybe it would improve with more time, or better match making. I liked the strike more, even though the boss fights might be a bit tougher than they needed to be, and ammo drops could be more frequent.

I like that, to be honest. I know it's always controversial, but for a game like this, where improving your character gives you an advantage in all the other modes, it would be weird if you stepped into the competitive multiplayer and all your efforts didn't give you an advantage over newer players.

Originally Posted by Venger

the rewards were pretty paltry.

This I agree with. I was surprised at how little glimmer you received for each match. Playing the other modes was a lot more efficient in terms of acquiring currency.

1. The game that Bungie appears to be making is NOT an "MMO", but an "ARPG". Like the "Diablo" series. But with the heart of the game being a FPS, rather than a dungeon-crawler. The backbone of these kind of games is that they are telling a particular story, and the game play advances the telling of that story. Remember, this game has a story that is unfolding within the context of the ENTIRE Solar System. I think you are underestimating how large a space that is. If the Sun were the size of a bowling ball, the Earth would be a PEA sitting 26 yds away. Pluto would be a PINHEAD, ANOTHER thousand yards away.

You reach a point where what you are talking about simply doesn't work to advance the story-telling.

2. The technological limitation isn't at the level of the consoles, for what you are talking about. Its the intensity of the computing power needed to support it at the back end. There's No Free Lunch. By the time you create a virtual space that big, populate it with objects, THEN try to coordinate the actions thousands-to-tens of thousands of people to a millisecond-level of precision needed to support a fps....you're looking at super-computer level of data storage an processing power. Never mind the man-hours needed to create the content necessary so that all this simply isn't just a vast open space.

...and no company can afford to bring all that to you--and still make any sort of profit---all for a one-time investment of $60 per-person.

Now...if you want to pony-up that $60 AND a rather sizable monthly subscription fee---a true MMO business model---then maybe we can talk.

1. The game that Bungie appears to be making is NOT an "MMO", but an "ARPG". Like the "Diablo" series. But with the heart of the game being a FPS, rather than a dungeon-crawler. The backbone of these kind of games is that they are telling a particular story, and the game play advances the telling of that story. Remember, this game has a story that is unfolding within the context of the ENTIRE Solar System. I think you are underestimating how large a space that is. If the Sun were the size of a bowling ball, the Earth would be a PEA sitting 26 yds away. Pluto would be a PINHEAD, ANOTHER thousand yards away.

You reach a point where what you are talking about simply doesn't work to advance the story-telling.

2. The technological limitation isn't at the level of the consoles, for what you are talking about. Its the intensity of the computing power needed to support it at the back end. There's No Free Lunch. By the time you create a virtual space that big, populate it with objects, THEN try to coordinate the actions thousands-to-tens of thousands of people to a millisecond-level of precision needed to support a fps....you're looking at super-computer level of data storage an processing power. Never mind the man-hours needed to create the content necessary so that all this simply isn't just a vast open space.

...and no company can afford to bring all that to you--and still make any sort of profit---all for a one-time investment of $60 per-person.

Now...if you want to pony-up that $60 AND a rather sizable monthly subscription fee---a true MMO business model---then maybe we can talk.

1. you can tell a story in massive seamless world. it doesn't need to be divided up.

2. yes, they are limited by the lowest common denominator. your post couldn't be more off. it's not that difficult and it has been done before.

we should just agree that the scope of this game wasn't supposed to be that big and move on.

1. you can tell a story in massive seamless world. it doesn't need to be divided up.

2. yes, they are limited by the lowest common denominator. your post couldn't be more off. it's not that difficult and it has been done before.

we should just agree that the scope of this game wasn't supposed to be that big and move on.

Sorry, but missed the point again.

1. Yes, you can tell a story in a massive, seamless world. But you can't tell it for FREE. IOW, you have to make choices...and do those choices advance THE story that the developer is looking to tell. Right now---with the story probably centering on Earth, the Moon, Venus and Mars---because Humanity has been pushed to having to defend their last bastion, the "seamlessness" that advances the story best is that of the planets themselves. Not travel between them.

Now---as is almost certainly going to happen in later games---as the Guardians defeat the invaders and begin to reclaim our lost territory....space travel---and what happens during it, will likely become more meaningful. So you'll probably start to see that show up in the game play.

2. I'm looking forward to "No Man's Sky"...but that will likely be a VERY diffrent game than Destiny. That game will probably be more like EVE Online. Where the exploration---and probably development---of the various worlds IS the story...and any combat will probably be infrequent and limited in both in its importance and how it is depicted.

3. Yes, what you are talking about has been done. It just hasn't been done on the scale you are talking about...around a core gaming experience that is as resource-and-timing-dependent as multi-player FPS....and WITHOUT a monthly subscription, or some other ongoing means of paying for the cost of the BACKEND infrastructure.

Yes, the previous generation of consoles poses some hardware limitation on what can be done in terms of graphic DETAIL. But the vast majority of what you are talking about are things that would be handled at the server level of processing.

Bottomline, there would be a cost to what you are asking for. A cost in either: decreased cohesiveness of the story behind the game; decreased content; less depth in the implementation of the shooting game at its heart; or substantially increased cost to the consumer.

...and Bungie made a judgement call that the cost (at this point) isn't worth what it would add (not much) to the game-experience they wish to give the player.

1. Yes, you can tell a story in a massive, seamless world. But you can't tell it for FREE. IOW, you have to make choices...and do those choices advance THE story that the developer is looking to tell. Right now---with the story probably centering on Earth, the Moon, Venus and Mars---because Humanity has been pushed to having to defend their last bastion, the "seamlessness" that advances the story best is that of the planets themselves. Not travel between them.

Now---as is almost certainly going to happen in later games---as the Guardians defeat the invaders and begin to reclaim our lost territory....space travel---and what happens during it, will likely become more meaningful. So you'll probably start to see that show up in the game play.

the problem is that they can't just add that now unless they go back to the drawing board and actually cut off support of last-gen consoles. it would be too costly to add seamless worlds moving forward if they didn't do it from the beginning.

and really, they could just "block out" some worlds so i don't know how this applies. it doesn't have to be one way or the other.

2. I'm looking forward to "No Man's Sky"...but that will likely be a VERY diffrent game than Destiny. That game will probably be more like EVE Online. Where the exploration---and probably development---of the various worlds IS the story...and any combat will probably be infrequent and limited in both in its importance and how it is depicted.

i've explained this earlier, i'm not directly comparing the two games. i'm saying that if it's possible to have procedural limitless worlds then it should be possible to have seamless dozen.

3. Yes, what you are talking about has been done. It just hasn't been done on the scale you are talking about...around a core gaming experience that is as resource-and-timing-dependent as multi-player FPS....and WITHOUT a monthly subscription, or some other ongoing means of paying for the cost of the BACKEND infrastructure.

not sure what this means. yes, they'd need powerful servers to have thousands of players everywhere and that would require a subscription. but they can still have seamless worlds with just a few players like they're doing it now. it doesn't need to be bigger in that respect.

Yes, the previous generation of consoles poses some hardware limitation on what can be done in terms of graphic DETAIL.

you're wrong. half of the games coming out this year and the next could not be possible on last-gen consoles due to their scope. please read up on why having more RAM is important.

But the vast majority of what you are talking about are things that would be handled at the server level of processing.

...

Bottomline, there would be a cost to what you are asking for. A cost in either: decreased cohesiveness of the story behind the game; decreased content; less depth in the implementation of the shooting game at its heart; or substantially increased cost to the consumer.

going open world does loosen some things a bit and it's more difficult to do a more focused storyline but from what we have seen or read so far, the story isn't that extravagant that it can't be done in an open world. especially since it's a co-op game where all you do is level up and get better gear/weapons. it's already a limited concept and perfect for any sort of massive game.

...and Bungie made a judgement call that the cost (at this point) isn't worth what it would add (not much) to the game-experience they wish to give the player.

yes and no. yes, cost is the issue. no, they know they can provide a better experience but they don't want to limit the platforms to just next-gen. that means wayyyy less revenues.

they know there's not much competition and they are catering to a certain kind of user base. they don't want it to be the best shooter ever made because i know they could've done way better. they want to make a great shooter that has a sustainable idea and a user base. the game design of this game was a business decision. period.

When Bungie conceived this game, they had two ideas in mind. One, that the heart of the game was going to be a FPS. Two, that they were not going to charge gamers a monthly subscription fee.

Those two decisions set the LIMITS within which Destiny had to fit. Despite the $500 million budget. What you are essentially arguing is that it's "technologically possible" to build a 30,000 sq ft. mansion on the French Riviera with the world's finest materials. Decorate it with rare antiques, and super cars (like Ferrari) in the driveway....and that the only reason it hasn't been done here, is that builders didn't use the most state-of-the-art construction equipment.

...and I'm saying it wasn't done because you can't do that within the prescribed limits BECAUSE YOU RUN OUT OF RESOURCES. Within those limits that Bungie and Activision could allocate, and stille expect to make a profit.

So that means you are dealing with a limited amount of processing power and MAN-HOURS of labor at the back end. So---yes----you could have seamlessly integrated space travel into planetary exploration. But it would have been at the cost of either reduced quality in some other aspect of the gaming experience....or greater cost to the gamer (in the guise of a monthly subscription fee).

If you do not honor those limits...you wind up with a debacle like DICE ran into with Battlefield 4. You try to do it all without the needed resources...and you wind up doing none of it well. Or you wind up with a game that won't sell because console gamer's refuse to pay the subscription fee necessary to fund it.

I don't know if you've played Titanfall (if you haven't, you're in for a treat when TF 2 comes out), but it set a VERY high bar for fluidity of movement and speed of combat in the FPS arena...and everyone who expects to compete in it going forward has to meet it....or exceed it. Activision is stepping up with CoD: AW. Sledgehamemr with BF: Hardline.

Destiny is not excused from this just because it has RPG aspirations to along with being a FPS.

The "seamless" flight you are asking for burns up BACKEND computing resources and doesn't really add anything appreciable to the shooter experience or to the story-telling. It also burns up resources better used to populating this world they are creating, and making each location breathtakingly unique. Something, I guarentee you, No Man's Sky is not going to be able to achieve.

When Bungie conceived this game, they had two ideas in mind. One, that the heart of the game was going to be a FPS. Two, that they were not going to charge gamers a monthly subscription fee.

Those two decisions set the LIMITS within which Destiny had to fit.

no it doesn't. they can have an open world and not charge a monthly fee. what matters is how many players are in that world, which would require bigger more powerful servers, hence the higher costs and requirement of subscriptions.

Despite the $500 million budget. What you are essentially arguing is that it's "technologically possible" to build a 30,000 sq ft. mansion on the French Riviera with the world's finest materials. Decorate it with rare antiques, and super cars (like Ferrari) in the driveway....and that the only reason it hasn't been done here, is that builders didn't use the most state-of-the-art construction equipment.

that's my problem, they could've used state-of-the-art technology but they opted out.

...and I'm saying it wasn't done because you can't do that within the prescribed limits BECAUSE YOU RUN OUT OF RESOURCES. Within those limits that Bungie and Activision could allocate, and stille expect to make a profit.

you run out of resources because you're catering to the lowest common denominator. my argument isn't about profits. my argument is about bungie's capabilities of making a great game and destiny is more of a business decision than a technical one.

So that means you are dealing with a limited amount of processing power and MAN-HOURS of labor at the back end.

you realize we're talking about bungie right?

So---yes----you could have seamlessly integrated space travel into planetary exploration. But it would have been at the cost of either reduced quality in some other aspect of the gaming experience....or greater cost to the gamer (in the guise of a monthly subscription fee).

no not a subscription but yes, some parts could've been reduced in quality but many parts of the game would've been gained in quality as well...and i think it would provide a much better experience too. i just don't think what we're getting now is worth it...but you can make an argument because we don't really know what it could've been. if they were able to make a badass game where you could go anywhere you wanted to, there weren't limitations...i could present my point better.

If you do not honor those limits...you wind up with a debacle like DICE ran into with Battlefield 4. You try to do it all without the needed resources...and you wind up doing none of it well. Or you wind up with a game that won't sell because console gamer's refuse to pay the subscription fee necessary to fund it.

what are you talking about? BF4 did "not" try to do anything. it also catered to last-gen consoles and "that's why" the game is limited. actually more limited in some ways than BF3.

I don't know if you've played Titanfall (if you haven't, you're in for a treat when TF 2 comes out), but it set a VERY high bar for fluidity of movement and speed of combat in the FPS arena...and everyone who expects to compete in it going forward has to meet it....or exceed it. Activision is stepping up with CoD: AW. Sledgehamemr with BF: Hardline.

you can have fluid movements and have a massive game. i don't get your point. they likely chose TF to be small because they wanted to make a simple game for casual people.

Destiny is not excused from this just because it has RPG aspirations to along with being a FPS.

all i'm saying is that it could've been better. i also said the same about TF when it was introduced.

The "seamless" flight you are asking for burns up BACKEND computing resources and doesn't really add anything appreciable to the shooter experience or to the story-telling.

there's no backend computing that you're speaking about. if they're streaming the textures then yes, and in an open world, that's likely...but those don't cost much resources, it's actually a smart way to overcome the resource issue.

It also burns up resources better used to populating this world they are creating, and making each location breathtakingly unique.

i don't know on what basis you're making this statement. there are going to be plenty of massive games this generation and they may still be unique and breathtaking despite being massive. Witcher 3 for instance.

Something, I guarentee you, No Man's Sky is not going to be able to achieve.

1. The production of video games is a BUSINESS. Which means people don't do it simply to make gamers happy. They do it to MAKE MONEY. You know the whole capitalism/free-market/profit thing. Bungie made the decisions that it needed to make in order to BALANCE their desire to make a kick-@ss video game...and to make a PROFIT doing it. So that they can stay in business and KEEP making such games.

2. What do you think SERVERS ARE? They BACK-END computing power. Back-end computing power that is necessary to create and manage these "persistent world" games. The more players such games try to accomodate...and the more more lifelike you try to make those worlds....the more back-end power you need, and the more it will cost to provide (and maintain) it.

3. I'm mentioning BF4, because that is how it got into trouble. They tried to do too much with their multi-player game than their resources could support. Sixty-four players. Lag free response. 1080p graphics. Destructible environments with life-like lighting and physics. Not to mention the manpower necessary to write and debug the code. As a result, a buggy product that didn't do what it promised got released...and damaged the brand in a way that gamers are still resentful of...and that EA and DICE are still trying to recover from.

4. While there are some hard-wired limitations to what X360/PS3 gen hardware can do in terms of graphic detail and frame-rate....the sort of things you are talking about are things are simply, pure number-crunching and can be easily off-loaded on to servers in the cloud.

The bottomline is that Bungie (wisely) decided to spend their resources on doing those things that best told the story THEY wished to tell with Destiny, and those things that made each setting feel truly unique and alive, as well as give flawless gameplay.

If you think think you are going to see the same attention to detail---and won't see certain patterns start to repeat---in the gameplay of No Man's Sky...you are fooling yourself. There is NO FREE LUNCH, JUST WHO GETS STUCK WITH THE BILL....and in order to provide that "seamless" transition from planet to space, I GUARENTEE YOU that budgetary compromises will have to be made elsewhere.

...and I'm betting that it will be made in such a way that "action" gameplay isn't as deep or refined as what we saw in Destiny...and the locations won't be quite as life-like and unique as they were in Destiny

1. The production of video games is a BUSINESS. Which means people don't do it simply to make gamers happy. They do it to MAKE MONEY. You know the whole capitalism/free-market/profit thing. Bungie made the decisions that it needed to make in order to BALANCE their desire to make a kick-@ss video game...and to make a PROFIT doing it. So that they can stay in business and KEEP making such games.

i already know this and have stated this. i understand this was a business decision and the game is probably fun but it could've been better, that's all i'm saying.

2. What do you think SERVERS ARE? They BACK-END computing power. Back-end computing power that is necessary to create and manage these "persistent world" games. The more players such games try to accomodate...and the more more lifelike you try to make those worlds....the more back-end power you need, and the more it will cost to provide (and maintain) it.

it doesn't need to be a persistent world in order to be an open world. it could be like it is now. i wouldn't mind either, but in that case, i would've preferred a F2P model.

3. I'm mentioning BF4, because that is how it got into trouble. They tried to do too much with their multi-player game than their resources could support. Sixty-four players. Lag free response. 1080p graphics. Destructible environments with life-like lighting and physics. Not to mention the manpower necessary to write and debug the code. As a result, a buggy product that didn't do what it promised got released...and damaged the brand in a way that gamers are still resentful of...and that EA and DICE are still trying to recover from.

but the game isn't all that, the reason they messed up was because they spread it too thin (on multiple platforms) and probably rushed the game.

if they had focused only the next-gen consoles, it may not have had as many issues. it's an average looking game compared to other games out. it's also not 1080p, it's 900p.

4. While there are some hard-wired limitations to what X360/PS3 gen hardware can do in terms of graphic detail and frame-rate....the sort of things you are talking about are things are simply, pure number-crunching and can be easily off-loaded on to servers in the cloud.

i don't think you fully understand the limitations of RAM. it's a lot more than just graphical detail and frame rate. it has everything to do with having the ability to make massive games or not.

The bottomline is that Bungie (wisely) decided to spend their resources on doing those things that best told the story THEY wished to tell with Destiny, and those things that made each setting feel truly unique and alive, as well as give flawless gameplay.

i still don't understand how they could not have told the same story with an open world...and why an open world story wouldn't be better in ways...especially if it meant you had to travel to other locations...that sounds badass to me. imagine riding on a banshee to your next location with a bunch of your friends.

If you think think you are going to see the same attention to detail---and won't see certain patterns start to repeat---in the gameplay of No Man's Sky...you are fooling yourself. There is NO FREE LUNCH, JUST WHO GETS STUCK WITH THE BILL....and in order to provide that "seamless" transition from planet to space, I GUARENTEE YOU that budgetary compromises will have to be made elsewhere.

...and I'm betting that it will be made in such a way that "action" gameplay isn't as deep or refined as what we saw in Destiny...and the locations won't be quite as life-like and unique as they were in Destiny

i think i've made it pretty clear multiple times that it wasn't a direct comparison, it was just to show that if an indie game is showing open world, we should be seeing them in AAA games. that's all it was. and you're implying as if an open world game wouldn't look or play as good (when it could do both better)...look at the witcher 3. really, the limitations exist in your mind. do you know why the witcher 3 is not coming out on last-gen consoles? think real hard.

also i have no doubt No Man's Sky could be a lot more if it weren't an indie game with 4 people working on it. (or whatever many are) that's not the limitation of the PS4, far from it. they didn't chose that direction because it would take a lot more people and a lot more budget...you know, sort of like what Bungie would have. get it?

bottom line is, it's a business decision and i'm not happy with it. i don't care if it's better for them. it doesn't fit with my requirements.

Since my posts are being accused of being too long, I'll just break this down to the basics:

1. What you are asking for is *technologically* doable with modern cloud-based processing. Even for last-gen hardware..... if one is willing to accept significant graphical compromises. Though I seriously question the wisdom of doing it from a narrative standpoint.

2. Now...are you so jacked to play such a game that you (and hundreds of thousands of your best friends) would be willing to pay $60 to buy the game AND $60 (or more) a MONTH in subscription fees?? In order to pay for the servers to make such a game work...and the manpower to populate that world with content on an on-going basis?

If so----great---then pitch your ideas to Bungie, Activision, or another major game developer. They might make you rich.

If not---then what you are asking for is not commercially viable. So no smart company would risk bankruptcy trying to do it well....or their reputation (like DICE did) trying to do it on the cheap.

Since my posts are being accused of being too long, I'll just break this down to the basics:

1. What you are asking for is *technologically* doable with modern cloud-based processing. Even for last-gen hardware..... if one is willing to accept significant graphical compromises. Though I seriously question the wisdom of doing it from a narrative standpoint.

2. Now...are you so jacked to play such a game that you (and hundreds of thousands of your best friends) would be willing to pay $60 to buy the game AND $60 (or more) a MONTH in subscription fees?? In order to pay for the servers to make such a game work...and the manpower to populate that world with content on an on-going basis?

If so----great---then pitch your ideas to Bungie, Activision, or another major game developer. They might make you rich.

If not---then what you are asking for is not commercially viable. So no smart company would risk bankruptcy trying to do it well....or their reputation (like DICE did) trying to do it on the cheap.

let me make it more simple for you. have you seen what Witcher 3 is like? do you think that game requires a server to play? does it need a subscription?

you really don't know what you're talking about at this point, i say this with all due respect. lastly, even if you think that i'm trying to make it into a subscription game...you do realize that there are tons of successful subscription games out there right? again, i'm saying that they can make a massive game without making it subscription-based. what gives you the idea that they "have" to make it subscription-based to make it massive?

and that first point. i don't even know what you're talking about there. yes, i understand that you do miss some opportunity to tell a very tight story in a massive world but these consoles are powerful enough that they don't need to compromise much of that. but sadly this is a cross-gen title so it would be difficult to do for them with last-gen support...which is why i said that i would've liked it if it were only for next-gen.

BF4? lol. again, no idea what you're saying there. BF4 isn't trying to do $#@!. it already did it in BF3, it's not doing anything new at all. ooo levolution, so what? it's all scripted. have you played BF4?

1. The problem I present for you isn't that I *don't* know what I'm talking about..its that I *do* know what I'm talking about. That, and the fact that you don't seem to quite understand the nature of parallel processing. That is putting multiple computuers/CPUs to working on different parts of a task at the same time.

If I put LOTS of smaller---less powerful----computers/processors to working on a problem, I don't need a single, powerful one. The parallel processing breaks the problem up into small piences that are all worked on simultaneously. Rather than one part after another by a single processor.

So by networking processors in this fashion you can dramatically increase the effective speed and power with which they can work without having to signficantly increase the specs on any of the individual processors being used.

2. Yes, I'm familiar with Witcher 3. What you are not grasping is that the scale of Destiny is much larger than Witcher 3....and Witcher 3 is functioning in a single environment. One world/planet. In Witcher you are not creating a whole new game play mechanic in getting from one place to another..which you would do if you tried to have the "seamless" transitions from planetside to space and back to planetside like you have in No Man's Sky.

You are also dealing with a single-player game, and not a massively-multiplayer one as is the case in Destiny.

3. I am aware that there are "tons of successful subscription based games"...because as a PC GAMER, I played a lot of them. The problem is that PC gamers have accepted paying-to-play on an ongoing basis, so that game developers have the resources necessary to continually update games and provide them with fresh content on an ongoing basis. CONSOLE gamers, OTOH, largely havent. As a group they've resisted additional payment beyond the initial outlay for the cost of the game. They've grudgingly accepted microtransactions, but there are very few successful subscription-based console games.

So, yes...you don't need a subscription to make a "massive (multiplayer) game"....if you are willing to either skimp on the computing power necessary to maintain it as a massively multiplayer entity (which is what got DICE and BF4 into trouble) or you're willing to have it play the same way every time, because there is no fresh content.

No free lunch. Just who gets stuck with the bill.

3. As I mentioned before, with these massively multiplayer games, the vast majority of the computing takes place at the server level....not at the console. All the console does is depict that part of the "world" that individual player is interacting with at that given time. It's still a lot of work---especially graphically speaking----but a lot of the less time-sensitve processing goes on "in the cloud" at the server level.

Which is why you are able to have cross-generation, massively multiplayer games, with little degredation across the platforms. Despite the fact that the next gen consoles are anywhere between 6 to 16 times more powerful than the previous generation computers. Where you'll see the difference---come Destiny beta time----is in the detail and smoothness of the graphics on the older hardware.

While PS4 (and probably XB1 since they freed up the RAM that had previously been dedicated to the Kinect) would have been able to support 1080p @60 FPS, there's no way that PS3 or XB360 would have been able to do so.

1. The problem I present for you isn't that I *don't* know what I'm talking about..its that I *do* know what I'm talking about. That, and the fact that you don't seem to quite understand the nature of parallel processing. That is putting multiple computuers/CPUs to working on different parts of a task at the same time.

If I put LOTS of smaller---less powerful----computers/processors to working on a problem, I don't need a single, powerful one. The parallel processing breaks the problem up into small piences that are all worked on simultaneously. Rather than one part after another by a single processor.

So by networking processors in this fashion you can dramatically increase the effective speed and power with which they can work without having to signficantly increase the specs on any of the individual processors being used.

lol dude. i don't even know which cloud you're on. could you explain to me how UBIsoft has been able to make Division with local processing? or are they also using this cloud power. basically what you're describing. server calculation can only go so far, what you speak of is what we know as cloud processing.

2. Yes, I'm familiar with Witcher 3. What you are not grasping is that the scale of Destiny is much larger than Witcher 3....and Witcher 3 is functioning in a single environment. One world/planet. In Witcher you are not creating a whole new game play mechanic in getting from one place to another..which you would do if you tried to have the "seamless" transitions from planetside to space and back to planetside like you have in No Man's Sky.

lol wow. ok, it doesn't matter if it's one planet or a billion, what matters is how big the game is. Witcher 3 has 64 square km of space. that's freaking huge.

i understand that they can do infinite planets if loading is involved but they could easily do this with (the technique ND uses) streaming textures. you are loading constantly. but this sort of programming takes more time and planning.

You are also dealing with a single-player game, and not a massively-multiplayer one as is the case in Destiny.

Division is massive and multiplayer, what is your point?

3. I am aware that there are "tons of successful subscription based games"...because as a PC GAMER, I played a lot of them. The problem is that PC gamers have accepted paying-to-play on an ongoing basis, so that game developers have the resources necessary to continually update games and provide them with fresh content on an ongoing basis. CONSOLE gamers, OTOH, largely havent. As a group they've resisted additional payment beyond the initial outlay for the cost of the game. They've grudgingly accepted microtransactions, but there are very few successful subscription-based console games.

wrong again bro. console drones are the reason we are getting so many DLCs...PC gamers would never pay for that $#@!. MMOs do not affect the overall industry. and those games are made for that. but because of console users, now we have to deal with half games that are more complete with DLCs...

So, yes...you don't need a subscription to make a "massive (multiplayer) game"....if you are willing to either skimp on the computing power necessary to maintain it as a massively multiplayer entity (which is what got DICE and BF4 into trouble) or you're willing to have it play the same way every time, because there is no fresh content.

No free lunch. Just who gets stuck with the bill.

BF4 is not a massive multiplayer game. it has 64 players, i wouldn't consider that massive. i would consider something like 200+ players on one server, massive.

and again, how many times do i have to say that they dont' have to make Destiny a "massive multiplayer" game in order to make a "seamlessly massive game". the two things are different and you keep dragging it to something else that i never said and have actually been correcting you.

3. As I mentioned before, with these massively multiplayer games, the vast majority of the computing takes place at the server level....not at the console. All the console does is depict that part of the "world" that individual player is interacting with at that given time. It's still a lot of work---especially graphically speaking----but a lot of the less time-sensitve processing goes on "in the cloud" at the server level.

LOL bro, none of these games have to be on the server side as long as it's not a "massive multiplayer online" game. you know, an MMO. i never said they needed to make it MMO...i do like that they kept it smaller without subscription, it doesn't have to change.

massive games do not need to have massive amounts of players. e.g. The Division so far that we know, does not need subscription. if it does, it would be if they have tons of people on one server...it doesn't have to be that way.

it's so simple and yet you're making it complicated. i bet you the next real borderlands game on next-gen consoles (if it doesn't have last-gen support) will have seamless worlds because the only thing stopping it from being that in the first place (on 360/PS3) was that it had low-powered (low RAM specificially) hardware to work with. it's a very simple concept.

that's why they can't just degrade Planet Side 2 and put it out on the PS3. it just wouldn't fit even if you scale it down to the lowest settings (equivalent to PC). Planet Side 2 is just not possible on the PS3. because it's a massive game, it requires a lot of RAM. if the game was in chunks like Destiny is, i wouldn't doubt its possibility on the PS3...after all, it only came out 2+ years ago! it should be possible on the PS3. whereas Destiny is coming out about 3 years later and is at least a cross-gen game (mix between last-gen and next-gen). and yet, Destiny is possible on the PS3 and Planet Side 2 is not.

again, i ask you to think about that.

Which is why you are able to have cross-generation, massively multiplayer games, with little degredation across the platforms.

lol what? little degradation? ok bud, please do me a favor, look at Forza Horizon 2 and then DriveClub and report back to me with what you think about the graphics of both.

Despite the fact that the next gen consoles are anywhere between 6 to 16 times more powerful than the previous generation computers.

i don't know where to start. you obviously have no clue what cross-gen entails.

Where you'll see the difference---come Destiny beta time----is in the detail and smoothness of the graphics on the older hardware.

point?

While PS4 (and probably XB1 since they freed up the RAM that had previously been dedicated to the Kinect) would have been able to support 1080p @60 FPS, there's no way that PS3 or XB360 would have been able to do so.

yeah, the PS4 and XB1 would've been able to do 1080p @60fps with way better graphics and scope...if it weren't also being developed for the PS3/360. i would agree in that context.

When people start resorting to sarcasm, it's usually a good sign that they are losing the argument on the merits.

1. The Division is---as of today---VAPORWARE. Destiny is a game that is ready for commercial release, while The Division still hasn't even produced a widely playable demo. It's not clear to what extent it will be massively-multiplayer...and some people question whether it will meet its 2015 release date.

2. Servers are simply computers. You can amplify computing power by networking the consoles (which is how Warframe handles the problem). It's just a less powerful, less reliable (though cheaper) way of addressing the problem.

3. It matters how many players activities you are trying to coordinate, and the complexity of the computing problems you are trying to solve in real-time. The fact that you don't seem to grasp this goes a long way to explaining the path this conversation has taken. Witcher 3 is a fairly simple computing problem to solve. "Big" in that setting is just a memory and graphics problem. Because you are only dealing with the activity of a single player....and the part of the world that is being depicted at any given time is the one that is player is occupying.

BF4 and Destiny are HIGHLY complex computing problems, as you are trying to coordinate the activities of dozens (in the case of BF4) to potentially thousands of players (each with different ping times) who are interacting in complex ways in constantly changing environments (esp in BF4)...and needing to be calculated and sent back to the indvidual consoles all in real time....and without detectable lag.

BF4 crashed-and-burned as a product because the servers and the code simply couldn't handle what was being demanded of it.

4. So what?? The moment Destiny ceases to be a massively-multiplayer game---YOU ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT GAME THAN THE ONE BUNGIE ENVISIONED AND SET OUT TO BUILD. It's like showing up to a baseball game and talking about how much better a FOOTBALL game would be. That's all-well-and-good (as a matter of personal preference) but that has nothing to do with the quality of the BASEBALL game, AS A BASEBALL game that's in front of you.

If you like sandbox games that are not massively-multiplayer...then, by all means, go play them. Go have fun with Watch_dogs. But, that's NOT what Destiny is, or was intended to be.

If you'd rather play football...fine. Don't show up at a baseball game and complain.

4. I played the original Planetside on a PC whose hardware wasn't even as capable as the current PS3. The problem with the PS3 (and part of the reason why XBox came to dominate last generation) is because its architecture made it difficult to program for. So it made it difficult to generate the multiplatform games that the major developers wanted to make. Which is why Sony with the PS4, took great pains this time around to make their console easy to program for.

The only impediment that the last gen consoles present to programmers today is that there hard limits to what they can do with these machines graphically. With most gamers participating on-line, much of the routine number crunching can be parallel processed in the cloud, allowing the software to operate with speeds the native hardware could not generate on their own.

...and Bungie essentially confirmed this. They basically stated that the only concession they have had to make in their game design as a result of multi-platforming (read last-gen hardware) was limiting frame rate to 30 FPS.

5. I own both an XBox One and a PS4, so I am quite familiar with what the graphics look like on both systems...as well as what Forza can do with cloud-based processing and "drivatars".

6. "Cross-gen" entails programming for computers with radically different hardware capabilities. What you consistently keep failing to grasp is that this is NOT the PS2 generation. When most players were gaming off-line, and were limited to the computing power that is "under the hood" of their console. Today most console gamers are gaming on-line (with broadband internet) in some fashion. WHICH ALLOWS THE CONSOLE TO UNLOAD PROCESSING OFF TO MORE MODERN AND POWERFUL computers in the cloud. Which allows a skilled programmer to compensate for the PS3s and XBox 360s less capable hardware. Except where graphics are concerned.

For example. I play Forza 5 on Xbox. Even though I always play as a single player, any "race" is a computing dance between my XB1 and their servers. Because each one of the cars I'm racing against is being controlled by a server-based "AI" that replicates the driving tendencies of actual human players. Which gives them their own individual character...and human unpredictability. All of which are rendered in real-time.

Because the computer power necessary calculate what these other "racers" are doing isn't under the hood of my XB1. The only thing the XB has to do is recieve the data necessary to depict those actions on my TV.

Although other game developers don't trumpet this, I gaurentee that you'll find similar things going on if you examined the code of cross-gen, massively multiplayer games intended for PS3 and XB360.

When people start resorting to sarcasm, it's usually a good sign that they are losing the argument on the merits.

1. The Division is---as of today---VAPORWARE. Destiny is a game that is ready for commercial release, while The Division still hasn't even produced a widely playable demo. It's not clear to what extent it will be massively-multiplayer...and some people question whether it will meet its 2015 release date.

so what you're saying is that they're going to say, "surprise motherfuckers, it's subscription-based." correct? oh that will go well!

2. Servers are simply computers. You can amplify computing power by networking the consoles (which is how Warframe handles the problem). It's just a less powerful, less reliable (though cheaper) way of addressing the problem.

i know what they are but i also know they haven't been used as extensively as you're implying. due to bandwidth reasons. could you give me a link that supports your claims? what exactly are they doing with the server computation power...i highly doubt they're doing anything to offload much graphics/RAM/CPU. maybe slight CPU.

3. It matters how many players activities you are trying to coordinate, and the complexity of the computing problems you are trying to solve in real-time. The fact that you don't seem to grasp this goes a long way to explaining the path this conversation has taken. Witcher 3 is a fairly simple computing problem to solve. "Big" in that setting is just a memory and graphics problem. Because you are only dealing with the activity of a single player....and the part of the world that is being depicted at any given time is the one that is player is occupying.

you're assuming that i'm not grasping, this entire conversation has been a straw man argument. you're making arguments out of nothing i mentioned.

The Witcher 3 doesn't need players but Division does but you've cleverly rebutted that earlier by calling it vaporware lol and that it comes out in 2015...which i don't know why that matters.

BF4 and Destiny are HIGHLY complex computing problems, as you are trying to coordinate the activities of dozens (in the case of BF4) to potentially thousands of players (each with different ping times) who are interacting in complex ways in constantly changing environments (esp in BF4)...and needing to be calculated and sent back to the indvidual consoles all in real time....and without detectable lag.

thousands of players? what are you talking about? lol. BF4 doesn't have more than 64 players at any point. unless you're talking about overall, in which case, again, you don't know what you're talking about. there's nothing new about keeping server data now than it was 10+ years ago. there's no different in how Destiny or BF4 deal with their users and the game than games did in the past.

they're just regular online games. they're not massive. BF4 doesn't need too much information, the changing environments in the game are pre-determined, it doesn't even need to go back and forth, it can be done locally because it's the same for everyone.

BF4 crashed-and-burned as a product because the servers and the code simply couldn't handle what was being demanded of it.

and what does that have to do with our convesation? BF3 did not crash and burn, it is just bad coding on their part. BF4 isn't much different than BF3 dude.

4. So what?? The moment Destiny ceases to be a massively-multiplayer game---YOU ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT GAME THAN THE ONE BUNGIE ENVISIONED AND SET OUT TO BUILD. It's like showing up to a baseball game and talking about how much better a FOOTBALL game would be. That's all-well-and-good (as a matter of personal preference) but that has nothing to do with the quality of the BASEBALL game, AS A BASEBALL game that's in front of you.

it's already not a massive multiplayer game. you yourself said that it wasn't in the beginning and now you're saying it is? lol how is it massive? so far it only supports 3 players in an entire area. how is that massive? the most i bet it supports is something like 40 people raids. i don't think it's going to have thousands of players on one map/server.

If you like sandbox games that are not massively-multiplayer...then, by all means, go play them. Go have fun with Watch_dogs. But, that's NOT what Destiny is, or was intended to be.

you don't even know what you're arguing about at this point.

If you'd rather play football...fine. Don't show up at a baseball game and complain.

4. I played the original Planetside on a PC whose hardware wasn't even as capable as the current PS3. The problem with the PS3 (and part of the reason why XBox came to dominate last generation) is because its architecture made it difficult to program for. So it made it difficult to generate the multiplatform games that the major developers wanted to make. Which is why Sony with the PS4, took great pains this time around to make their console easy to program for.

i know that PS3 was difficult but it was also very weak. http://www.game-debate.com/games/ind...Planetside%202
look at the minimum specs, if your PC was less than the minimum (which is asking for 2x the VRAM PS3 has) then your game also ran $#@!ty, which makes your point moot.

The only impediment that the last gen consoles present to programmers today is that there hard limits to what they can do with these machines graphically.

ok i'm done talking to you. you obviously don't get anything about game development. .

With most gamers participating on-line, much of the routine number crunching can be parallel processed in the cloud, allowing the software to operate with speeds the native hardware could not generate on their own.

...and Bungie essentially confirmed this. They basically stated that the only concession they have had to make in their game design as a result of multi-platforming (read last-gen hardware) was limiting frame rate to 30 FPS.

no that is a bunch of bologna. they aren't going to admit it.

5. I own both an XBox One and a PS4, so I am quite familiar with what the graphics look like on both systems...as well as what Forza can do with cloud-based processing and "drivatars".

they don't look as good as they can yet and that is because a lot of these games are cross-gen. again, look at FH2 and then DC and report back your findings.

6. "Cross-gen" entails programming for computers with radically different hardware capabilities. What you consistently keep failing to grasp is that this is NOT the PS2 generation. When most players were gaming off-line, and were limited to the computing power that is "under the hood" of their console. Today most console gamers are gaming on-line (with broadband internet) in some fashion. WHICH ALLOWS THE CONSOLE TO UNLOAD PROCESSING OFF TO MORE MODERN AND POWERFUL computers in the cloud. Which allows a skilled programmer to compensate for the PS3s and XBox 360s less capable hardware. Except where graphics are concerned.

NO IT DOESN'T! what makes you think they're using cloud power when the feature hasn't even been introduced yet! where do you come up with such bull$#@!!? for the love of Mary!

For example. I play Forza 5 on Xbox. Even though I always play as a single player, any "race" is a computing dance between my XB1 and their servers. Because each one of the cars I'm racing against is being controlled by a server-based "AI" that replicates the driving tendencies of actual human players. Which gives them their own individual character...and human unpredictability. All of which are rendered in real-time.

which has nothing to do with processing power that you speak of. it's AI processing which is a bit load off the CPU, that's it.

Because the computer power necessary calculate what these other "racers" are doing isn't under the hood of my XB1. The only thing the XB has to do is recieve the data necessary to depict those actions on my TV.

Although other game developers don't trumpet this, I gaurentee that you'll find similar things going on if you examined the code of cross-gen, massively multiplayer games intended for PS3 and XB360.

yeah, let's go with your guarantees and made up crap. great, thanks for wasting my time.

Looking at the architecture in Figure 3, you might wonder what number of concurrent players the gaming system can handle. There is no set answer. By default, a TGEA server is configured to handle a maximum of 64 players, but this configuration can be easily updated to any number. At some point, though, when a certain number of concurrent users are on a game server, performance will degrade to the point of making the game unplayable. There is no set limit to this number. Performance is dependent on a number of factors, such as:

The processing power and bandwidth available to a server.
The design of the world. A game consisting of simple avatars walking around a featureless plain, devoid of any objects, in a thick fog, can perform better than a highly interactive first-person shooter set in a richly detailed world full of numerous objects.
The game type. A virtual world or turn-based MMORPG does not require the networking fidelity and performance of a first-person shooter game.

"One intriguing possibility is to offload potentially computationally-intensive functions, such as AI, onto the Web server. This does not mean the "tactical" level AI of non-player characters (NPC) immediately responding to players, which should remain in the game server since it requires split second response time, but the more strategic level AI of how NPCs react to game conditions at a high level. "

Looking at the architecture in Figure 3, you might wonder what number of concurrent players the gaming system can handle. There is no set answer. By default, a TGEA server is configured to handle a maximum of 64 players, but this configuration can be easily updated to any number. At some point, though, when a certain number of concurrent users are on a game server, performance will degrade to the point of making the game unplayable. There is no set limit to this number. Performance is dependent on a number of factors, such as:

The processing power and bandwidth available to a server.
The design of the world. A game consisting of simple avatars walking around a featureless plain, devoid of any objects, in a thick fog, can perform better than a highly interactive first-person shooter set in a richly detailed world full of numerous objects.
The game type. A virtual world or turn-based MMORPG does not require the networking fidelity and performance of a first-person shooter game.

could you please refrain from giving me MMO information? lol. we're not talking about MMOs.

"One intriguing possibility is to offload potentially computationally-intensive functions, such as AI, onto the Web server. This does not mean the "tactical" level AI of non-player characters (NPC) immediately responding to players, which should remain in the game server since it requires split second response time, but the more strategic level AI of how NPCs react to game conditions at a high level. "

As long as we are talking about Destiny, we ARE talking about MMOs. Although Bungie doesn't want to refer to Destiny as an MMO because of all the assumptions that many people have about what they are, and how they should play.....Destiny is a Massively Multi-player On-line, Action Role-playing Game that is a First-Person Shooter (MMO-ARPG-FPS).

...and the articles I posted clearly outline the problems that the structural "seamlessness" you want would cause for MMO-FPS like Destiny.

...and that those problems are an increased need for computing power on the SERVER side of the equation not the CLIENT (console)

Now if you want to discuss something OTHER than this----then this debate is over. Because---like I said earlier---you're into wanting to evaluate a baseball game by football standards. Which is frankly pointless and non-sensical. For any-and-all purposes beyond your personal gaming preferences.

Which there are plenty of options out there to satisfy. Like I said. Feel free to go have fun with Watch_dogs. But Watch_dogs is a fundamentally different game than Destiny both in intention, scope, and the server-side computing power necessary to support it....and I really have no interest in apples-to-lawn-furniture comparisons.

...oh, and---by the way--- the Forza 5 example is just one of MANY ways that cloud-based parallel processing can unburden client computers and dramatically improve their performance as a result.

Microsoft also has a good video on YouTube showing how much of a difference it can make in the speed and smoothness of depicting "destructible enviroments" graphically. When one off-loads calculating the physics of debris movement to cloud-based servers, rather than trying to run those calculations client-side, while trying to also graphically depict them in real time.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.